Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

 Compel wrote:
It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

Complaints about meddling are misguided. WB got involved -- more than once -- because they saw JL becoming BvS 2 under Snyder's watch and knew that'd be a franchise killer. If you guys check out that ElFanboy site, I think he lays it out very well.

Where you blame WB is for 1) going all in on Snyder from the getgo, and 2) being too hands-off with him early on, requiring them to overcompensate later. Whedon was brought in as a hired gun to do emergency surgery, not to be an auteur. I think it's appropriate that the studio gets their say in that situation. It would almost certainly be different if Whedon's Batgirl film come to fruition.

Note that Geoff Johns and WB didn't meddle with WW, because they knew what Jenkins wanted fit their vision and what the universe needed.

And for the record, JL has better reviews and audience ratings than BvS, but is worse in both categories than MoS. JL also had a much lesser second weekend drop than BvS. There are plenty of issues with JL, but audiences haven't hated it and it has set up characters like Aquaman and Flash up pretty well for their films. It's VERY CLEAR that WB just wants the Snyder era to be over.

Yeah I'd agree worth that summary, Gorgon

 gorgon wrote:

 Compel wrote:
It looks more like Warner are trying to manage the differences between the styles within the one film than it being a long term problem.

Complaints about meddling are misguided. WB got involved -- more than once -- because they saw JL becoming BvS 2 under Snyder's watch and knew that'd be a franchise killer. If you guys check out that ElFanboy site, I think he lays it out very well.

Where you blame WB is for 1) going all in on Snyder from the getgo, and 2) being too hands-off with him early on, requiring them to overcompensate later. Whedon was brought in as a hired gun to do emergency surgery, not to be an auteur. I think it's appropriate that the studio gets their say in that situation. It would almost certainly be different if Whedon's Batgirl film come to fruition.

Note that Geoff Johns and WB didn't meddle with WW, because they knew what Jenkins wanted fit their vision and what the universe needed.

And for the record, JL has better reviews and audience ratings than BvS, but is worse in both categories than MoS. JL also had a much lesser second weekend drop than BvS. There are plenty of issues with JL, but audiences haven't hated it and it has set up characters like Aquaman and Flash up pretty well for their films. It's VERY CLEAR that WB just wants the Snyder era to be over.

You can also blame WB for demanding the final cut be as short as humanly possible so more showings could be crammed in to each day, and for demanding Whedon complete his dramatic "surgery" on the film for the original release date rather than pushing it back a year in order to ensure the current crop of besuited morons in charge got their year-end bonuses before "stepping down for family reasons" etc due to the abysmal decisions they've made up to this point.

The DC superfans don't get to wriggle off the hook either - recall back at the beginning of this whole debacle they were ecstatic at the idea that WB would be doing "proper, grown up" filmmaker-driven movies instead of the "stifling and juvenile McFranchise" approach of Marvel, and plenty of them loved Snyder's deconstructionist approach for the same reason they love Miller and Moore above pretty much anything before or since.

It's long, but it really is worth watching the Moviebob and Midnight's Edge dissections of this whole fiasco, they're bordering on forensic and WB do not come out well.

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

Ridley Scott did Prometheus.


And take that back! It was a good comedy.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Ridley Scott did Prometheus.

And take that back! It was a good comedy.

Whoops wrong director Unintentionally perhaps...but ti was still held up by some as visionary etc

 Yodhrin wrote:
You can also blame WB for demanding the final cut be as short as humanly possible so more showings could be crammed in to each day, and for demanding Whedon complete his dramatic "surgery" on the film for the original release date rather than pushing it back a year in order to ensure the current crop of besuited morons in charge got their year-end bonuses before "stepping down for family reasons" etc due to the abysmal decisions they've made up to this point.

The DC superfans don't get to wriggle off the hook either - recall back at the beginning of this whole debacle they were ecstatic at the idea that WB would be doing "proper, grown up" filmmaker-driven movies instead of the "stifling and juvenile McFranchise" approach of Marvel, and plenty of them loved Snyder's deconstructionist approach for the same reason they love Miller and Moore above pretty much anything before or since.

It's long, but it really is worth watching the Moviebob and Midnight's Edge dissections of this whole fiasco, they're bordering on forensic and WB do not come out well.

Regarding runtime, you can't point to that as a mistake unless you know the scenes that were cut and how they'd affect the overall film.

We know there's extra stuff with Vulko and presumably Atlantean politics from what Momoa said. But even he said he understands that material is probably better covered in Aquaman, and isn't necessary to the JL film. We also know there's a scene with Barry saving Iris. That's cool for the fans, but would that make JL a better film? Same goes for the rumored scene with Bruce meeting GLs. In BvS's case, a lot of stuff that was cut was near-necessary to the film, but that doesn't mean the same holds true for JL. Besides, it was completely unrealistic for BvS to be a 3 hour film. Snyder was BONKERS for thinking that would be acceptable to WB, and WB was BONKERS for giving Snyder that much slack.

Look, JL certainly has its issues, but sometimes there are no good solutions to problems. You just have to pick the 'least bad' solution and roll with it. Overall, I think WB probably chose correctly down the home stretch with JL. And I don't think pushing back JL was an option. That'd just mean extending the Snyder era that WB clearly wants to end. Whedon wasn't going to turn JL into a masterpiece and they'd already sunk FAR too much money into the movie, so I think it's reasonable for WB to want to pull that Band-Aid off quickly and get it over with. Note that these statements don't let WB off the hook for their many other missteps along the way.

I have no idea what fans have to do with anything. Fans didn't make the films or influence them. If you're commenting on hypocrisy, I don't see much of that either, since the biggest Snyder fans seem angry and busy signing petitions demanding that WB release his cut (which will obviously never happen for a variety of reasons).

 Mr Morden wrote:

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

m
Uh.. What? I've heard nothing but complaints about any of those films. Certainly not 'deifying' the directors involved.

Comparing JL and WW is just odd. I've seen real people actually praise the latter, even with zero knowledge of comics.
When talking about elements of JL, people have a tendency to laugh hysterically. Particularly the extended, 'well we have this box, lets violate a grave, dump it in water with the corpse and wait to see what happens. Oh no, the monster has yoinked our box' sequence.

Voss wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Voss wrote:
.

Mr. Morden wrote:
And yet JLA is (subjectively) a far superior film in all respects to Man of Steel and Bats vs Superman.

That isn't an accomplishment. It isn't even noteworthy.

Squeezing out a bland and inoffensive movie isn't any sort of achievement at this point. Movie studios know the basic formula by heart, what kind of music goes with what kind of scene, and the basic rhythm of patter and seriousness that a movie needs to hit as it rolls through the stations of each act. But that does not yield anything particularly interesting or impressive as a film in its own right, or give any confidence in what might follow it.

Which amazingly, those following films went from inevitable to 'maybe?' given how badly the prior films wrecked the franchise.

And still they get it wrong in many films - Suicide Squad tried for it and did not quite make it due to pacing /plot issues, Wonder Woman got it right and so did Justice League and they should be lauded for making good enjoyable films.

I was more replying to those who for some reason thought that MOS and BvS were "better" films due to less studio pressure. IMO they are clearly not by any measurement - artistic, creative, character, pacing, plot - all these are far less developed in the two preceding movies.

There is also a tendency to deify certain directors and when they make average or in fact very poor movies they are heavily defended despite the actual faults with the film - See:

Nolan/Synder with MoS
Synder with BvS
James Cameron with Prometheus,
Lucas with the Prequals

and others.

m
Uh.. What? I've heard nothing but complaints about any of those films. Certainly not 'deifying' the directors involved.

Comparing JL and WW is just odd. I've seen real people actually praise the latter, even with zero knowledge of comics.
When talking about elements of JL, people have a tendency to laugh hysterically. Particularly the extended, 'well we have this box, lets violate a grave, dump it in water with the corpse and wait to see what happens. Oh no, the monster has yoinked our box' sequence.

Lots of people (IMO) rightly complain about them but others stress how they are visionary, artistic etc etc

Why is it odd? - both the friends I went with enjoyed both films immensely as did I - certainly less of strain to accept the flaws than MoS or BvS which were just plot hole after plot hole but even on this thread people talk about the ambition, power etc of those films - none of which I see.

Because to hear people talk about the two films, WW is a real film, and JL is a crude skeleton filled with plot holes and moments of WTF- I was quite serious that the reactions I've seen are laughter. Still better than the reactions to the other DC films (bar suicide squad, actually), but nothing to indicate the two films are of comparable quality.

Different strokes for different folks. Morden, it's not exactly a secret that you strongly prefer lighter fare in your superhero films. JL checks that box and so you enjoy it more than those without that predilection. That's why I told you that you'd probably like it more than most of the other DC films.

I found the bit where they lost the box of awesome power, because they left it in a car park, hilarious. I don’t think it was intentional, but the sheer absurdity of it tickled me.

 gorgon wrote:
Different strokes for different folks. Morden, it's not exactly a secret that you strongly prefer lighter fare in your superhero films. JL checks that box and so you enjoy it more than those without that predilection. That's why I told you that you'd probably like it more than most of the other DC films.

Yes and no

I don't mind darkness - but I prefer these (and other genre films) to have characters that have the ability to generate an emotional connection - be that love, hate, interest, confusuion - whatever. What I donlt like is so called "big idea" films that are (to me at least) completely souless because they are only inerested in that "big idea". I liked JL because yes it was fun but also because there were people with powers in it, Wiring engaging characters is harder than people give credit for.

but as you say different strokes.

Voss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

You were talking about the title, and I noted a movie trilogy with a similar title, that didn't have any issues. The fact that "Captain America" did fine means that "America" in the title isn't a problem.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Is the film actually known as "Justice League of America" in the US?

No. Just Justice League.

There was an old comic by that title and the old cartoon that became (or spun off into) the Superfriends originally went by that title (back in the late 60s), so I suspect some people call it that out of habit, but even Warner Brothers isn't tone deaf enough to title the current film that, even in the NA market.

As opposed to Marvel doing not one, but THREE, "Captain America" movies, which have done fairly well globally?

It's not the title that's the issue.

Hmm, I wasn't even vaguely addressing success of films. There is just a big a difference between a character and a franchise. Or even an in-universe group.

When someone says Captain America, you know what you're getting, especially if you know the WWII background for the character. 'Justice League of America' makes about as much sense as 'United Nations of America.'

You were talking about the title, and I noted a movie trilogy with a similar title, that didn't have any issues. The fact that "Captain America" did fine means that "America" in the title isn't a problem.

O...K...
Let me break this down, Captain America is supposed to be a representative of early 20th century American values, particularly positive ones (supposedly, anyway). And how that viewpoint interacts with the modern world. That's his point.

The Justice League are a group of heroes that save the world. If they're the Justice League of America, it implies that Supes and Friends will get an alert about South Commu-Terror-nista (or other parts of the world that the US doesn't like) being on fire, shrug, and go back to playing poker.
Many of the League members (Aquaman and Wonder Woman come to mind specifically) have no reason to care about advancing the cause of America the way that organizational name implies.

It isn't about the movie title as a marketing gimmick, it's about what the name implies for the characters.

It's worth noting that of of the New 52 reboot (or shortly after), there has been both a Justice League (the regular guys) and a Justice League of America, which is the US Government's answer to the fact they can't control the regular JL; they build a similar, US-based team that is hypothetically able to counter the JL (though really, despite them having a couple of powerhouses, it's not even close. See the early parts of Trinity War...)

And to be honest, I'd totally be up for a JLA movie. A middle ground between JL and Suicide Squad, and there's some fun characters they can draw on (I'd love a 'proper' Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter is just awesome, Hawkman could be fun, Simon Baz GL is cool).

Hold on. MM is a powerhouse and easily holds his own against WW or Supes.

Yeah, MM and Hawkman bring some power. But Catwoman, Green Arrow, one of the weakest Lanterns, Katana, they're just dead weight against the proper League.

Green Arrow is just a slightly poorer, but more sane Batman.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Green Arrow is just a slightly poorer, but more sane Batman.

Depends on which one you're talking about

Who is MM? I am not familiar with the acronym.

Is it Martian Manhunter?

Yes, that’d be my guess!

 Easy E wrote:
Who is MM? I am not familiar with the acronym.

Is it Martian Manhunter?

Yes! IN a JL context, "MM" == Martian Manhunter, and he's the best!

Unless you have a book of matches or a Bic